EDAMUTTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. R 305, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and the consequential deduction under Section 80P was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it was a matter for the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Edamuttam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 11.03.2021. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the criteria of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner appealed this assessment order before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In its appeal, the petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, despite the assessment order being issued after this judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to consider the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Assessee's contentions: - The assessing officer failed to consider the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was delivered prior to the assessment order. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments before the High Court. However, the assessment order itself indicates the revenue's position that the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria for a Primary Agricultural Credit Society.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 11.03.2021. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the first respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as WP(C) NO. 348 OF 2022 3 Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the first respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 348 OF 2022 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
